Posted Apr-12-2012 By

jpeterman57

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

LMAOatLibs

@jpeterman57
By working with so-called community action groups who are corrupt ( which operate on taxpayer funds, Acorn sound familiar ?) and shielding his profiteering through lawyers and layers of false documents and bogus legal fees.

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

RoccoSantoro

Comment of user 'RugOutFromUnderYou' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!

@jpeterman57 He worked all 57 states like a traveling agitator community organizer. And his fat wife got a winkie winkie "job" on the board of directors of Treehouse Foods:

"In June 2005, a few months after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Obama hustled a seat on the corporate Board of Directors of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Despite zero experience, the food-processing company put her on its audit and nominating and corporate governance committees. For her on-the-job More..training and the privilege of putting her name and face on their literature, the company forked over $45,000 in 2005 and $51,200 in 2006 to Mrs. Obama — as well as 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year."

Dont't you Libs just HATE those evil corporations, especially when the First Lady is bilking one??? How do you spell HYPOCRITE again?Less..

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

TheMule

@TheMule Yep, the Obama Zombies aren't drinking his kool aid anymore, they went straight to his jiz. Fucking idiots have no clue on what built this nation and the world economy. Guess what, idiots? It wasn't government.

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

LMAOatLibs

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

cdlcrash

Roll Call’s Top Ten Richest Congressmen. Only 3 of the top 10 are Republican, the other 7 Democrats. And McCaul's millions are actually from his wife. Bummer, I guess you Liberal donkeys are going to have to find another bitchfest topic to try and bamboozle America with. You still have the race card and gender cards, of course. Congrats to all of these men, Dem or Repub, for their financial success and prosperity. Good work, boys.

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

dcmfox

This is such bullshit propaganda and I'm going to pick it apart one step at a time.

Step 1: What is wrong with investors other than the owners of the private equity company investing? Isn't that how EVERY investment company operates? Recruiting outside investors in order to raise capital? Whats wrong with this?

Step 2: Obviously the image of "squeezing higher profits" is used to create a negative view of the companies investors. This is just a negative way of saying actually make theMore.. company profitable. In many cases the alternative is bankruptcy!

Step 3: Yes, costs have to be cut and that usually includes jobs. The alternative is that the company goes under and everybody looses their job. The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit and compete in the marketplace, not provide jobs!

Step 4: Using the company as collateral just raises more capital so that the company has a better chance of surviving and being more competitive. How is it in any way immoral to borrow on the equity of a company if that helps the company survive?

Step 5: Why would the original investors not be entitled to receive a special dividend. Despite what Reich says, they did in fact risk their own money, and they also were the most responsible for saving the company and subsequently jobs!

Step 6: Selling the company is somehow immoral? Most of these investors have no interest in manufacturing widgets why shouldn't they unload it. The company and all the associated jobs still exists whereas if the investors never stepped in there may no longer be a company!

Step 7: Pocketing gains. Why should Investors not receive a profit for risking their own money and saving a failing company. If the company went bankrupt the investors would be losers too!

Step 8: You only pay 15% gains on the interest gained of of your own investment. If private equity managers don't risk their own capital they don't make capital gains!

Reich also goes into a tirade about who subsidizes benefits for unemployed workers. Two responses to this point; First, corporations pay unemployment insurance to the government to cover workers that they let go. secondly, the private equity firm actually saves companies from failing, therefore preventing workers from being unemployed who otherwise would have lost their jobs, in effect saving the taxpayer money. Also providing a tax revenue stream from employed workers and a corporation still in existance.

Finally, Reich says that the citizen has to make up the lost revenue from a company going under but he fails to mention the private equity firms actually SAVE companies from bankruptcy more often than not. In fact healthy companies are not targets for private equity firms, failing companies are!

At one time Mr Reich may have been an economist but now he is nothing more than a political hack!

Mr Reich and MoveOn, keep preaching to your sheeple. Most of us aren't that stupid!Less..

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

dcmfox

@dcmfox
Oh you mean the unauthorized war in Libya? You know the one where Obama violated the war powers resolution? Or do you mean the escalation in Afghanistan that Obama approved?

As far as taxes. If Obama keeps spending the way he's going, no amount of tax increase will balance the budget. Although its hard to tell because democrats have refused to present a budget for the past 3 years.

The sooner we get these anti-American Marxists out of office the better. Pretty much all of them are eviMore..l self serving pieces of shit!Less..

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

mikedelta12

@dcmfox
You are on the wrong side of this one. I just gained a new client specifically because they obtained venture capital just like Bain. It has made it possible for about two dozen people to be gainfully employed and they don't even have a mailing address yet. Capital is what makes the world go around. Various political systems will call it this or that, but in the end, its all about the money. Marx called it capital and amalgamation. Look it up.

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

catcher

Comment of user 'quasimodo' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!

Comment of user 'Blue3tar' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!

@quasimodo They didn't make them profitable, they gutted them, sold anything that was left and laid everyone off. Either that or they shipped the jobs overseas while closing the American factories. And this is the guy that is going to fix the economy????? lol

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

copperdog3

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incoMore..mes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.Less..

Posted Apr-13-2012 By

yorba

Posted Apr-13-2012 By

Singlecoilsnap

MORONS.....Equity firms take bad run business.....buy bad employees, ceo's, managers, etc.....and put good workers that care, into a JOB !!! RISKY RISKY RISKY....that's why the 20% return because there is no guarantee of a return. High risk means a greater tax break. Who here wants to go buy a "barely making it company" on your own and hope and pray you can turn it around. OR......we could all come together and share the expense and have lower risk....Equity partners and Equity fiMore..rms were thus created. Smart people buy into equity firms, REIT and profit sharing. It's the best way to invest. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MAKING MONEY.....Stop being jealous that your broke and you somehow deserve a damn thing for doing nothing from some rich dude who was smart enough when he was broke to say " Hey, I'm tired of being broke. I'm going to make something of myself by getting educated and taking some risk." Making money is hard work and lots of failure to get there.

OR WE COULD JUST CLOSE THE DAMN THING DOWN AND EVERYONE WOULD BE OUT OF WORK....idiots !!Less..

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

copperdog3

@Zardoz003
And since when do you go praising war heroes? You would be severely challenged to simply tie Eisenhower's shoes. And yes, his administration was progressive insofar as it was the post-war boom. Money pouring in from every angle. Social security et al were all solvent at the time and there was no end in sight. Is it your position that the fifties has any economic comparison to today whatsoever? You would do well to actually learn some history before you make yourself an ass withMore.. drive-by historical references again.Less..

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

copperdog3

hehe reading the comments on this story is quite amusing. Perhaps you Yanks could just start the civil war soon. Then who ever wins can just make up all the crap they want to and with a little bit of luck it will spill over into the rest of the world and we will all get what is deserved.

Posted Apr-12-2012 By

morningwood

@morningwood And when Obama talks, feces falls out of his lips and dribbles down his shirt front. Poor Socialists, all pooty mad at Mitt the millionaire. Are you equally pooty at John Kerry's millions, which bury Mitt's?